You are on page 1of 4

ISAT 321

Hanford Risk Assessment Project
In this project, you will prepare certain elements of a risk assessment for the US Department of Energy’s Hanford Site. eep in mind that hundreds of indi!idual ha!e worked on assessing risk at this site for decades, and the process will likely continue for decades. I am not e"pecting you to prepare the definiti!e risk assessment for this site, rather, I e"pect you to get familiar with re!iewing en!ironmental data, understanding potential pathways, and calculating some risk metrics. Here’s your task# $. Download %from &&' and re!iew the Summary of the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2009. Understand the site, the en!ironmental setting, the contaminants, and the ongoing monitoring.

(. )rite a *ro+lem ,ormulation -eport for the site. .his is the initial stage of risk assessment de!elopment. /onsider human health and ecological health. 0our *ro+lem ,ormulation -eport should include the following elements# a. Site introduction 1 &riefly descri+e the history of the site, the en!ironmental setting, and the potential contamination issues at the site. Don’t worry a+out the detailed +reakdown +etween different opera+le units %$22, (22, etc.'. /onsider the site as a whole. )hat contaminants are present, and where are they present %air, water, soil'3

.he Hanford site was the first nuclear production site in the world. /reated during a time when the US4 needed to a weapon to gain the upper hand during )orld )ar II, the Hanford Site made huge technological stri!es at a great cost to the en!ironment +ecause of the lack of knowledge and care when they +egan producing nuclear materials. .he testing of different nuclear technologies and production of nuclear materials continued in some form up until (225 when the site was decommissioned so that its effects on the en!ironment can +e assed. .he site is situated along the +ank of the /olum+ia -i!er, a water source that ser!ices a large portion of the state of )ashington, and also -attlesnake 6ountain which is located on an Ecology -eser!e. Ha!ing +een made aware of the damage and the potential for more damage, the D7E made the restoration and clean up of the Hanford Site a priority. .his is +ecause of the huge possi+ility of contamination of the water and soil, its possi+le effect on animals more specifically the any species considered at risk, and the long term effects on the health of the ecosystem. 6ost of the contaminant can +e found in the water in soil as much of the waste produced was stored in tanks +oth a+o!e and +elow the ground. .his was one of the greatest risks as it has a great deal of influence o!er the en!ironment, for e"ample if the soil is contaminated !egetation can also +e affected. 7!er time and without regular upkeep some of these tanks leaked leading to contaminants in the surrounding areas. .here is also trace amount of contaminants in air, +ut this contamination was much less than in the soil and water. Since is Hanford is a nuclear site means most of the contaminant are radioacti!e, though some chemicals also were found. Some e"amples of contaminants found are iodine1$(5, cesium1$89, plutonium1(8:, plutonium1(85;(<2, and plutonium1(<$.

/hoose a rele!ant non1human receptor %discussed in %c' a+o!e' and a rele!ant contaminant %discussed in %+' a+o!e'. .o"ic Su+stances > Disease -egistry %4. tritium. d. De!elop one that descri+es the pathways from contaminant sources to a human receptor. "n one study they choose to test #hitefish from the $olumbia River and %eese. They hoped to identify the cause of the fall in population of $hinook salmon and &agles. Having found some in the soil then the surrounding vegetation must also be tested. plutonium1(<$ c. .or ease. Along with looking into the soil and vegetation the water supply must also be e!amined as it provides life for all animals. iodine1$(5.or the (225 study Hanford looked at many different species for possi+le effects. and de!elop one that descri+es the pathways from source to some non1 human receptor. plutonium1(8:. plutonium1(85. )hat endpoints might you use to monitor these receptors3 )ith any contamination the effect on end point receptors must +e looked at. "n order to test these they captured them and took samples of their tissues.(<2.SD-' we+site. /onceptual model = De!elop. cesium1$89.ISAT 321 +. Some good sources of information might include the 4gency for . The study looked at the plants Rabbitbush and tumbleweed as they are very common vegetation surrounding the site. you can com+ine discussion of all of the radiological ha?ards. . or other sources. illustrate. strontium152. Endpoint assessment = Discuss the potential receptors %target species or populations' that may +e at risk from e"posure to the site. /ontaminant profile = *ro!ide some information on the potential human health effects and ecological effects of the contaminants present. the E*4 -adiation *rotection we+site. By looking at the soil they hoped to identify it as a cause for the declination of the Umtanum Buckwheat. and discuss two conceptual models for e"posure at the site. In order to study possi+le soil and !egetation the Hanford study first looked directly at the soil testing for radionuclide’s.

fluoride. .$2 in the course te"t.or contaminants with non1carcinogenic effects. chloroform.:. eep in mind that for non1carcinogenic effects. Discuss the relati!e risks from the !arious contaminants. )rite a -isk /haracteri?ation Summary for human health risks from drinking groundwater in this area. In section (. calculate the a!erage daily dose during the e"posure period using the ma"imum (22: concentrations from %a' a+o!e and e"posure factors for residential ingestion of pota+le water from .actor %mg. . . and uranium.$. find the ma"imum measured groundwater concentration of each non1 radioacti!e contaminant in (22:.or carcinogenic contaminants.or non1carcinogenic contaminants.his list would include# car+on tetrachloride.a+le <. )hich contaminants pose the greatest risk3 h. the daily dose is a!eraged only o!er the e"posure period and not o!er the lifetime. calculate the chronic daily intake for each contaminant using the ma"imum (22: concentrations from %a' a+o!e and e"posure factors for residential ingestion of pota+le water from .d'1$ /hronic Daily Intake %mg. .kg. g. completing the following ta+les may +e helpful. Table 1.or carcinogenic contaminants. c. Download %from &&' and re!iew the e"cerpt from the Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2008.d' Incremental lifetime cancer risk .$2 in the course te"t. /oncentration %mg.C' *otency . a.B' /arcinogenic effects from oral e"posure3 %0. d. nitrate. trichloroethene. .his e"cerpt is for the (221@*1$ opera+le unit and descri+es the (22: groundwater monitoring results in this area. f.a+le <. chromium. /ontaminant 6a". <. e. calculate ha?ard Auotients and a ha?ard inde". In preparing the -isk /haracteri?ation Summary.ISAT 321 8. Use the I-IS data+ase to find non1carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk endpoints for each contaminant %if a!aila+le'.kg. +. calculate the incremental lifetime cancer risk. Discuss the o!erall risk to humans drinking groundwater from the site. Cancer Risk from Drinking Groundwater at the Hanford ite. .

richloroethylene' /hloroform Citrate /hromium %DI' .luoride Uranium %solu+le salts' Ha?ard Inde" 6a".richloroethene %or . "on#cancer Risk from Drinking Groundwater at the Hanford ite.richloroethylene' /hloroform Citrate /hromium %DI' . /oncentration %mg.kg.d' Ha?ard Euotient .d' 4!erage Daily Intake %mg.kg. /ontaminant /ar+on tetrachloride .richloroethene %or .ISAT 321 /ar+on tetrachloride .C' -eference Dose %mg.luoride Uranium %solu+le salts' Table !.B' Con1carcinogenic effects from oral e"posure3 %0.